The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, September 1, 1919, Page 7

Is Criticism of Corruptlon a Crime? ‘ Tennessee Editor Is Jailed for Contempt of Court Because He Wrote Editorial Attacking Graftmg Politicians BY STAFF CORRESPONDENT HAVE just come from the Shel- by county (Tenn.) jail, where I visited with Editor E. T. Leech of the Memphis .Press, held prisoner in that jail because he dared print in his paper an edi- torial entitled, “The Shame of It AlL" In this editorial the “divine right of the boss” was attacked; waste, inefficiency, indecency, corruption, lawlessness and autocracy were denounced, and it went on something like this: “The politicians have had a long day in Mem- phis. Their profits have- been enormous, ‘their crimes heinous. and industry. They have corrupted the forces .of the law, stolen elections, squandered public funds and flourished on indecency. “Public officials have been contaminated by their hands. Even courts have been brought into disre- pute and judges have abandoned the principles of loyalty and integrity, have made a farce of the laws they swore to enforce, have dragged their own courts in the mire, have turned traitors to their friends and supporters, and enemies to the princi- ples they professed because the politicians have laid their hands on them and forced them to do their bidding.” And the editor continued: “It is a shameful thing to see a court dishonored and:a man disgraced to serve the ends of political self-seekers. It is a sickening thing to see men profit from vice, grow fat on corruption, thrive on stolen votes and flourish on wasted funds—all for selfish, personal motives.” The editorial hit the political gang, ruled by Boss Ed Crump, and there arose howls of anguish and cries of vengeance. It came in a program of at- tacks upon corrupt politics, misrule and judicial dis- honesty waged by the Press for years. It came in an election campaign when the Crump gang was fighting for its political life. _And so they sent Editor Leech to jail to “teach him a lesson.” It so happened that the day before this editorial was printed Judge Israel H. Peres of the chancery court had granted a temporary injunction restrain- ing the state election board from ousting a Mem- phis election commissioner after he had been ac- cused, tried and convicted of political trlckery favormg the Crump gang. For years Memphis has been ruled by Boss Crump, last of the notoriously unscrupulous munic- ipal bosses who once reigned in all American cities. Besides being unscrupulous, Crump is a born leader, a most experienced politician,, once . ousted as mayor for corruption, and who still is in the saddle here. BOASTED OF POWER TO CONTROL VOTES Openly the Crump gang boasted of its ability to con- trol elections, and to acquire control over public officials elected as anti-Crump ecandi- dates. Everybody in Memphis had come to know that control of the election machinery meant control of the election. Always the faction that had the majority of the county elec- tion commissioners won at the polls. And the Crump gang bragged on its ability to “count ’em in.” Crump can- didates were said to be “beat- able, but unseatable.” The . faction opposing Crump, and this included all good government citi- zens, asked the state elec- tion board to remove the notorious Crump election commissioners, and this was done. But on the eve of the election the Crump . gang came into Judge " Peres’ court and asked for After a restraining order. .They have driven away business . L B AR 45:;;@6 Mm R %‘fim@fi% 49 ’r‘iev e, :-ym:-:- The case of E. T. Leech, imprisoned for alleged contempt of court arising from an editorial attacking corrupt courts and politicians, has been brought, before the national house of repre- sentatives. John M. Baer, North Da- . kota congressman, elected by the or- ganized formers of the state, has asked a congressional investigation of the proceedings in the Tennessee court. The trial and conviction of Leech have helped to arouse public sentiment against arbitrary powers of the courts. The conviction of Leech stands, like the conviction of A. C. Townley at Jackson, as an example of misuse of the courts for political purposes. considerable delay, Judge Peres granted a tem- porary injunction. That was the death knell of anti-Crump hopes. The decent citizens fore- saw him walking away w1th the election. And he did. Now we get to this Judge: Peres, of Jewish an- cestry, little known as a possessor of legal knowl- edge, but who had for years posed as an anti-Crump “man. Indeed, it was because of his professed anti- Crump views that he was appointed chancellor by Governor Rye two years ago. So you may imagine the consternation that reigned among the anti- Crumps when Judge Peres ruled in favor, of the Crump faction, thus practically nullifying the fight made against the boss. But Editor Leech, in his answer in court, main- tained that it was not Judge Peres to whom he referred in his famous editorial. He insisted that his denunciation of corrupt judges and dishonest courts was manufactured to fit any judge and any court of such character. In other words, Leech said “any judge who thought the shoe fit him might wear it.” A half dozen lawyer friends of Judge Peres thought Leech was aiming at Judge Peres. At least they so professed to think. How they came to think that the “shoe fit” their judicial friend is a mystery to me, for the leader of the six, Lawyer R. Gratz Brown, told me that he thought Chancellor Peres was a “most upright, honest, fearless judge.” Brown added: “Newspapers need to learn their place.” " E. T. Leech, editor of Memphis Press, in iail at Memphis. . PAGE SEVEN RN That, to me, seems to explain the whole thing— why the editor was sent to jail August 4 for 10 days for alleged “constructive contempt of court.” Editor Leech was brought into Judge Peres’ court. He was asked if his editorial referred to Judge Peres, and he replied that the editorial men- tioned no names, alluded to no particular case in court, and referred to no specified court; that it did take in all corrupt judges, all dishonest courts. Judge Peres'turned the case over to his brother chancellor, Judge F. H. Heiskell, and Leech was quickly convicted and sentenced the maximum un- der Tennessee law. He appealed to the higher courts and the sentence was confirmed. And today it is law in this state that a news- paper can not criticize a judge of any caliber, of any court, for anything he does in or with a case in which the public is vitally affected until that case is removed from that particular judge’s jurisdiction. A former editor of the Press was sent to jail on a trumped-up charge by the gang and refused per- mission to see even his own lawyer. And a judge of the criminal court has been re- moved for corruption in his court. Yet the courts say that they must not be criti- cized. And the leader of the prosecution of Editor Leech says: INFLUENCE OF DECISION FELT THROUGHOUT NATION “Newspapers must be taught their place!” This decision does not affect the people of this state alone. Its influence even now is being felt in every other state, and in every court in every state. It establishes a precedent, a thing for other judges and lawyers and courts to go by. The ruling of the supreme court here will be quoted in every contempt proceedings in every state where a judge is trying to stifle public criticism. There is but one way to forestall the judicial autocracy in this attempt to stifle free speech and a free press, and that is by statute limitation of the right of judges to interpret contempt. They now have what they insist is the “inherent right of a court to protect itself,” and they have interpreted this to mean a right to punish by contempt pro- ceedings any person whose opinion doesn’t happen to coincide with the judicial opinion on a case in court. In the Judge Peres instance he was a candidate for re-election at the time. This would indicate that the judicial autocracy intended making itself a thing of eternal life by shutting off criticism in election time. Further, Judge Peres’ case indicates a disposition to extend the right of punish- . ment by contempt to cover al- amost any sort of near or dis- tant contempt. It would seem to indicate that a free Ameri- can can not speak of the cor- -ruption of judges, or the dis- " honesty of courts, mentioning no names or courts, if some judge took it upon himself to believe, or profess to believe, that the editorial was aimed at him, If he could stretch his powers of imagination thus far, he could do even better and believe, or profess to believe, that the denunciation of judi- cial corruption “interfered” with the case under his con- sideration, or with the case he had decided but in which the time for appeal had not ex- pired. - So much for the effect upon newspapers of this decree. Its effect upon the readers would be identical. If a newspaper is stifled by a Jjudge-made law, so is the word of mouth. You, Mr. Man, and you, Mrs. ‘Woman, can not criticize a judge for his action, ruling, corruption, dishonesty, if the courts of your state follow the Tennessee. That is the goal of, Amencan Judlcml autocracy. IAISEL e e riling of the highest court in SNBSS SIS NS e iy ,\.